Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK: The Ruby Connection


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh boy, the Discovery Channel did it again. Fed the world a bunch of nonsense and paraded it as an honest investigation. This new documentary, while purporting to present an objective look at Ruby's potential involvement in a conspiracy, did everything it could to SELL America that such speculation was just silly. Gary Mack was once again its hired gun and spewer of nonsense as fact.

The only value I could find in the program was its view of Oswald's death from 9 different cameramen and photographers. That was interesting and worthwhile. But the rest?

While I don't remotely consider myself an expert on the Ruby connection, here are a few of the glaring errors/deceptions...

NO mention that Oswald, at the time of the Tippit killing, had traversed almost a mile from his rented room, and was still on a direct route to Ruby's apartment, only a half mile away.

NO mention of Seth Kantor's assertion Ruby was at Parkland Hospital, which might lead one to think Ruby's involvement pre-existed Oswald's arrest. (And would also lead one to conclude Ruby was a xxxx.)

NO mention of DPD officer Billy Grammer's assertion that Ruby called the police station the night before Oswald was to be moved, and warned him that Oswald was going to be killed.

NO mention of any dispute about Ruby's coming down the ramp. Yep, that's right. It says Ruby said he came down the ramp without pointing out that this was disputed by the officer guarding the ramp. Of course, this allowed them to hide that the HSCA believed this officer, and that the head of security for the basement, Patrick Dean, failed a polygraph, and had been singled out as a xxxx in 1964 by the Warren Commission counsel tasked with interviewing him.

NO mention of Ruby's phone call records, which showed him to have been in ever-growing contact with underworld figures in the months before the assassination.

NO mention of Ruby's assertion to Warren that the truth would not be known unless Warren brought him to Washington, and that Warren refused to bring him to Washington.

NO mention of the HSCA's conclusion that Ruby lied on his polygraph.

The program did, however, repeat a number of single-assassin theorist factoids. Including...

That Oswald brought about his own demise by putting on a sweater, and delaying his departure. This load of crud has been uttered repeatedly by the Dallas Police, but even a marginal study of the evidence indicates the police were not prepared for his departure at the time. I believe several of the officers even indicated that AFTER this supposed delay, Oswald was held in an office for a few minutes before being brought downstairs. The possibility has always existed, and still exists, therefore, that Oswald was held up by the police until Ruby was in place.

That Ruby's arrival downtown after 11 indicated he'd not come down to shoot Oswald, but only did it as an afterthought. Dallas PD chief Jesse Curry admitted in his book that, although he'd told the press to be ready for a transfer after 10, he, and therefore most certainly other policeman, KNEW the transfer wouldn't take place till much later. I believe he said after 11. This leaves open the possibility someone on the DPD was in contact with Ruby...perhaps even the same officer who let him in the building.

The program also made some really STUPID statements. One glaring moment of "DUH" comes towards the end when the narrator says the fact that Oswald was allowed to live for so long after Kennedy's death indicates he wasn't killed for a reason. HOW could the conspirators know, after all, that he hadn't talked? UGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. ONE, because the Dallas Police were parading every bit of evidence before the press, and had repeatedly TOLD the country Oswald wasn't talking. TWO, pretty much every conspiracy theory worth noting accepts the probability one or more DPD officers or FBI agents were involved on some level. Just a really STUPID statement, IMO, and one designed to confuse newbies unaware of the real issues.

In short, the program appears to have been yet another program whose primary purpose was to convince people Oswald acted alone, and that the Dallas Police (and by extension, the City of Dallas) were completely innocent.

I wonder if Gary Mack's contract with the Sixth Floor Museum includes writing saying he must participate in such programs, and help in their creation. I wonder at this point if he would even be allowed to participate in a program should it hint, even so slightly, that the DPD was either incompetent or complicit in Oswald's death.

Suggested reading: Adams Vs. Texas. a true-life account of an accused cop-killer, and the injustices he faced at the hands of the DPD, Dallas County DA's office, and Texas courts. It tells of their efforts to kill him, even though he was quite clearly (to non-Texans) innocent, and guilty of little more than having long hair and having met a young Texas punk on the day the kid decided to kill a cop. (They couldn't get the death penalty on the kid--so they decided to pin it on Adams.)

Anyhow, it's a really powerful story, and includes a Dallas DA's claiming Adams was as guilty as Oswald. Which is kind of the point. As Adams was innocent. After over a dozen years on death row and prison, Adams was eventually let go, in large part because he got a movie made abut his case, but also in part because one lawyer on the DA's office saw how ridiculous it was to try to re-try a man for a crime to which someone else (a clear sociopath who went on to kill again after not being charged with killing the cop--a crime to which he'd confessed--in exchange for his testimony against Adams) had admitted to doing.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why watch such crap anymore? The subject of course is of interest, but it's too maddening what they do it with it, and such viewing is dangerous for people like me with high blood pressure. But thanks for the info. It's good for those of you who can watch/stomach it to tell the rest of us what you saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why watch such crap anymore? The subject of course is of interest, but it's too maddening what they do it with it, and such viewing is dangerous for people like me with high blood pressure. But thanks for the info. It's good for those of you who can watch/stomach it to tell the rest of us what you saw.

If you feel this way you should send John Geraghty $20 to help him, as part of his graduate thesis, film a five part series that he is putting together that will rival the HBO Bugliosi series, smothering it with the truth.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, the Discovery Channel did it again. Fed the world a bunch of nonsense and paraded it as an honest investigation. This new documentary, while purporting to present an objective look at Ruby's potential involvement in a conspiracy, did everything it could to SELL America that such speculation was just silly. Gary Mack was once again its hired gun and spewer of nonsense as fact.

The only value I could find in the program was its view of Oswald's death from 9 different cameramen and photographers. That was interesting and worthwhile. But the rest?

While I don't remotely consider myself an expert on the Ruby connection, here are a few of the glaring errors/deceptions...

NO mention of Ruby's assertion to Warren that the truth would not be known unless Warren brought him to Washington, and that Warren refused to bring him to Washington.

There was a program before it about the Mob's alleged participation. Either it or the Ruby Connection did mention that Ruby wanted to go to Washington to talk but wasn't allowed.

Did you see Gary Mack get choked up?

In short, the program appears to have been yet another program whose primary purpose was to convince people Oswald acted alone, and that the Dallas Police (and by extension, the City of Dallas) were completely innocent.

I wonder if Gary Mack's contract with the Sixth Floor Museum includes writing saying he must participate in such programs, and help in their creation. I wonder at this point if he would even be allowed to participate in a program should it hint, even so slightly, that the DPD was either incompetent or complicit in Oswald's death.

Suggested reading: Adams Vs. Texas. a true-life account of an accused cop-killer, and the injustices he faced at the hands of the DPD, Dallas Country DA's office, and Texas courts. It tells of their efforts to kill him, even though he was quite clearly (to non-Texans) innocent, and guilty of little more than having long hair and having met a young Texas punk on the day the kid decided to kill a cop. (They couldn't get the death penalty on the kid--so they decided to pin it on Adams.)

Anyhow, it's a really powerful story, and includes a Dallas DA's claiming Adams was as guilty as Oswald. Which is kind of the point. As Adams was innocent. After over a dozen years on death row and prison, Adams was eventually let go, in large part because he got a movie made abut his case, but also in part because one lawyer on the DA's office saw how ridiculous it was to try to re-try a man for a crime to which someone else (a clear sociopath who went on to kill again after not being charged with killing the cop--a crime to which he'd confessed--in exchange for his testimony against Adams) had admitted to doing.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, the Discovery Channel did it again. Fed the world a bunch of nonsense and paraded it as an honest investigation. This new documentary, while purporting to present an objective look at Ruby's potential involvement in a conspiracy, did everything it could to SELL America that such speculation was just silly. Gary Mack was once again its hired gun and spewer of nonsense as fact.

The only value I could find in the program was its view of Oswald's death from 9 different cameramen and photographers. That was interesting and worthwhile. But the rest?

While I don't remotely consider myself an expert on the Ruby connection, here are a few of the glaring errors/deceptions...

NO mention that Oswald, at the time of the Tippit killing, had traversed almost a mile from his rented room, and was still on a direct route to Ruby's apartment, only a half mile away.

NO mention of Seth Kantor's assertion Ruby was at Parkland Hospital, which might lead one to think Ruby's involvement pre-existed Oswald's arrest. (And would also lead one to conclude Ruby was a xxxx.)

NO mention of DPD officer Billy Grammer's assertion that Ruby called the police station the night before Oswald was to be moved, and warned him that Oswald was going to be killed.

NO mention of any dispute about Ruby's coming down the ramp. Yep, that's right. It says Ruby said he came down the ramp without pointing out that this was disputed by the officer guarding the ramp. Of course, this allowed them to hide that the HSCA believed this officer, and that the head of security for the basement, Patrick Dean, failed a polygraph, and had been singled out as a xxxx in 1964 by the Warren Commission counsel tasked with interviewing him.

NO mention of Ruby's phone call records, which showed him to have been in ever-growing contact with underworld figures in the months before the assassination.

NO mention of Ruby's assertion to Warren that the truth would not be known unless Warren brought him to Washington, and that Warren refused to bring him to Washington.

NO mention of the HSCA's conclusion that Ruby lied on his polygraph.

The program did, however, repeat a number of single-assassin theorist factoids. Including...

That Oswald brought about his own demise by putting on a sweater, and delaying his departure. This load of crud has been uttered repeatedly by the Dallas Police, but even a marginal study of the evidence indicates the police were not prepared for his departure at the time. I believe several of the officers even indicated that AFTER this supposed delay, Oswald was held in an office for a few minutes before being brought downstairs. The possibility has always existed, and still exists, therefore, that Oswald was held up by the police until Ruby was in place.

That Ruby's arrival downtown after 11 indicated he'd not come down to shoot Oswald, but only did it as an afterthought. Dallas PD chief Jesse Curry admitted in his book that, although he'd told the press to be ready for a transfer after 10, he, and therefore most certainly other policeman, KNEW the transfer wouldn't take place till much later. I believe he said after 11. This leaves open the possibility someone on the DPD was in contact with Ruby...perhaps even the same officer who let him in the building.

The program also made some really STUPID statements. One glaring moment of "DUH" comes towards the end when the narrator says the fact that Oswald was allowed to live for so long after Kennedy's death indicates he wasn't killed for a reason. HOW could the conspirators know, after all, that he hadn't talked? UGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. ONE, because the Dallas Police were parading every bit of evidence before the press, and had repeatedly TOLD the country Oswald wasn't talking. TWO, pretty much every conspiracy theory worth noting accepts the probability one or more DPD officers or FBI agents were involved on some level. Just a really STUPID statement, IMO, and one designed to confuse newbies unaware of the real issues.

In short, the program appears to have been yet another program whose primary purpose was to convince people Oswald acted alone, and that the Dallas Police (and by extension, the City of Dallas) were completely innocent.

I wonder if Gary Mack's contract with the Sixth Floor Museum includes writing saying he must participate in such programs, and help in their creation. I wonder at this point if he would even be allowed to participate in a program should it hint, even so slightly, that the DPD was either incompetent or complicit in Oswald's death.

Suggested reading: Adams Vs. Texas. a true-life account of an accused cop-killer, and the injustices he faced at the hands of the DPD, Dallas Country DA's office, and Texas courts. It tells of their efforts to kill him, even though he was quite clearly (to non-Texans) innocent, and guilty of little more than having long hair and having met a young Texas punk on the day the kid decided to kill a cop. (They couldn't get the death penalty on the kid--so they decided to pin it on Adams.)

Anyhow, it's a really powerful story, and includes a Dallas DA's claiming Adams was as guilty as Oswald. Which is kind of the point. As Adams was innocent. After over a dozen years on death row and prison, Adams was eventually let go, in large part because he got a movie made abut his case, but also in part because one lawyer on the DA's office saw how ridiculous it was to try to re-try a man for a crime to which someone else (a clear sociopath who went on to kill again after not being charged with killing the cop--a crime to which he'd confessed--in exchange for his testimony against Adams) had admitted to doing.

What gets to me is all the silly 'what if' scenarios that were laid out.

Well IF Oswald hadn't asked for a sweater, he wouldn't have been shot.

Well IF the transfer car had been in place ,Oswald wouldn't have been shot.

Well IF Harry Holmes hadn't made a last second request to ask Os another question, he probably wouldn't have been shot.

IF IF IF..........

IF there had been better SECURITY in the basement ,Oswald wouldn't have been shot!

The fact is, these things happened....WHY?

-Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All what if's are irrelevant, the simple fact being that Oswald was not going to be brought down until Ruby was in place. Till then, Oswald could have taken all the time he wanted to pick out a sweater.

The only what if that could have saved Oswald is what if Ruby didn't show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All what if's are irrelevant, the simple fact being that Oswald was not going to be brought down until Ruby was in place. Till then, Oswald could have taken all the time he wanted to pick out a sweater.

The only what if that could have saved Oswald is what if Ruby didn't show up.

Probably, in my opinion, Ruby stopped at Western Union or wherever he sent money to one of his dancers, so he'd have a time stamp and his killing of Oswald would seem spur of the moment not conspiratorial. Also taking one of his dogs with him and leaving him in the car. (I wonder who took care of Ruby's dogs after that.)

I want to say I made a mistake when I said I saw Gary Mack on one of these Mafia programs. I saw him on The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours Later. He began to break up over the coffin hassle in Parkland Hospital and Jackie standing there, having to listen to curses and such over her husband's murdered body. I'm sure she wanted to get her husband out of Dallas. I surely would. But the trouble is President Kennedy would have gotten a better autopsy in Dallas than what awaited him in Bethesda.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me about the whole thing is the premise: that individuals can get lucky but that groups of individuals cannot. This kind of logic gets bandied about when talking about Oswald's employment at the TSBD, for instance. It assumes that historical actors don't change with circumstances-- that the way history works itself out is the only way it could have worked out. Thus if the outcome requires that a group/conspiracy got a bit lucky, it must not have been a group/conspiracy.

The best counter-example to this is an actual assassination-- that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Several conspirators were in place along his parade route and attempted but failed to kill him. It is widely accepted that the conspiracy was larger than that-- and connected to a Serbian nationalist group known as the Black Hand. So how did Ferdinand die? He happened to have taken a wrong turn and approached Givrarlo Princip, one of the conspirators, who capitalized on this second opportunity to kill him. Pure chance. A group got lucky. Just like the Lincoln conspirators were lucky that Lincoln's guard was out drinking when Booth came to shoot him.

Nothing ever goes completely as planned. Groups have well-thought out ideas that go poorly due to bad luck and poorly-thought-out ideas that pan out due to good fortune. Groups, and individual group members, adjust to changing circumstances. Just like anyone else. Would world history (WW1) really be that different had the group succeeded in their first efforts? Even if Princip failed, whose to say they would not have tried at a later point?

In short: if Ruby was part of a conspiracy, whose to say that he simply wouldn't have shot Oswald in a courtroom, or paid a jailmate to kill him, etc. ? Maybe the conspiracy simply would have failed. But to base a whole line of logic on the idea that groups/conspirators can never get lucky is ridiculous and not historical.

-Stu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me about the whole thing is the premise: that individuals can get lucky but that groups of individuals cannot. This kind of logic gets bandied about when talking about Oswald's employment at the TSBD, for instance. It assumes that historical actors don't change with circumstances-- that the way history works itself out is the only way it could have worked out. Thus if the outcome requires that a group/conspiracy got a bit lucky, it must not have been a group/conspiracy.

The best counter-example to this is an actual assassination-- that of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Several conspirators were in place along his parade route and attempted but failed to kill him. It is widely accepted that the conspiracy was larger than that-- and connected to a Serbian nationalist group known as the Black Hand. So how did Ferdinand die? He happened to have taken a wrong turn and approached Givrarlo Princip, one of the conspirators, who capitalized on this second opportunity to kill him. Pure chance. A group got lucky. Just like the Lincoln conspirators were lucky that Lincoln's guard was out drinking when Booth came to shoot him.

Nothing ever goes completely as planned. Groups have well-thought out ideas that go poorly due to bad luck and poorly-thought-out ideas that pan out due to good fortune. Groups, and individual group members, adjust to changing circumstances. Just like anyone else. Would world history (WW1) really be that different had the group succeeded in their first efforts? Even if Princip failed, whose to say they would not have tried at a later point?

In short: if Ruby was part of a conspiracy, whose to say that he simply wouldn't have shot Oswald in a courtroom, or paid a jailmate to kill him, etc. ? Maybe the conspiracy simply would have failed. But to base a whole line of logic on the idea that groups/conspirators can never get lucky is ridiculous and not historical.

-Stu

Hi Stu,

In watching Gary Mack on TV this week, I can't quite catch his logic when he says that Ruby murdering Oswald could not have been a conspiracy because of the coincidental timing of Ruby telegraphing the money and killing Oswald four minutes later.

Since Ruby had been stalking Oswald all weekend, it was only a matter of time before they would cross paths again. And Ruby's hap hazzard movements were only half the equation.

Why couldn't they have waited until they knew Ruby was in place before moving Oswald, something they could have done by simply looking out the window. It really seems like they were delaying the move with Postal Inspector Holmes, who said that when he looked out the window, he remembers seeing Honest Joe's pawnbroker truck, which was also at Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

Somone must ask Garry how Ruby's movements are proof that there was no collusion in the timing of the move of Oswald?

Todd Vaughn recently joined the forum. Being a card-carrying member of Ken Rahn's reactionary cell "Nonconspiracists United," http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, whose manifesto is "Chance Not Conspiracy," I thought he might be one to defend this theory.

http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html

Chance, Not Conspiracy, In The Death Of JFK

Kenneth A. Rahn

19 November 2003

We Americans have been deluged for decades by tales of conspiracy in JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963. As a result, most of us believe that it happened that way. But the facts are very different—Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the assassination, it is essential to hear the real story of the assassination.

Parallel strands of chance brought President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald together. Oswald moved to Dallas just when the Texas School Book Depository was hiring seasonal workers. He needed work badly, and one of his wife’s neighbors had a brother who had just started work there. She suggested that Oswald try it, too. His wife’s landlady got him an interview the next day, and he was hired. He began on October 16th, weeks before a motorcade through Dallas had been decided on.

Kennedy was brought to Oswald by three strokes of chance. The first was the last-minute cancellation of Kennedy’s honorary degree by Texas Christian University in Forth Worth. That created a slot only partially filled by a breakfast event there. To complete the schedule JFK decided on a motorcade in Dallas, the second stroke of chance.

The third stroke was choosing the venue for the luncheon on the 22nd. Kennedy and the Secret Service preferred one location, but Governor Connally insisted on the Dallas Trade Mart and won out. With the first location, the motorcade would have passed through the middle of Dealey Plaza at high speed and with Mrs. Kennedy between Oswald and JFK. The new site required driving slowly along the edge of the plaza, in the opposite direction and right in front of the depository. This brought Kennedy within easy shooting range and made him a slower, unshielded target. The route first appeared in the papers only three days ahead of time.

Although these sequences of events were improbable, they were no more so than any sequence we could name. Unpredictable events occur every minute every day, but we focus on the tiny fraction that yield spectacular results. We should not forget all the public events where presidents have not been shot, including Kennedy’s six previous motorcades on the same trip.

Oswald and Ruby were also drawn together by parallel strands of chance. Oswald was brought to Ruby by two unforeseeable delays in his 10 a.m. transfer from City to County Jail, one for an hour’s further interrogation by the chief postal inspector—who skipped church at the last minute to see whether he could help the police—and another by Oswald’s last-minute request for a dark sweater for TV.

Ruby was drawn to Oswald when he decided to close his nightclubs for the weekend because of the assassination. That threw his dancers out of work. One of them called him Sunday morning for $25 for food and rent. Ruby went downtown to wire her the money. With his favorite dog Sheba in the car, he left home an hour after Oswald should have been transferred. He wired the money and walked over to the police station, where he had noticed a small crowd outside. Arriving just as a truck came up the ramp and distracted the guard, he ducked into the basement. When Oswald appeared a minute later, Ruby lunged forward and shot him with the pistol he routinely carried to protect the large amounts of cash he usually kept on his person ($2000 that day). Save for every event in these two unplanned series, Ruby could not have killed Oswald. Extraordinary sequences to be sure, but with no room for conspiracy.

Clearing Oswald and Ruby removes the major impetus for thinking conspiracy. But couldn’t there have been some level of conspiracy? If not, then two important predictions follow. All evidence offered for conspiracy will fail, and conspiracy theories proposed anyhow will vary widely in specifics because they are all ungrounded in reality.

The evidence for conspiracy has in fact failed. JFK’s dramatic rearward lurch (Oliver Stone’s famous “back and to the left”), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet. The “magic,” or “pristine,” bullet, too “undamaged” to pass through both men, was deformed in precisely the manner expected for jacketed bullets hitting flesh. (It also had such overwhelming penetrating power that it was used for decades to hunt elephants.) The ephemeral shooter on the knoll turns out to be the product of echoes, confusion, and overactive imagination applied to single grainy print. The acoustical evidence allegedly revealing a shot from the knoll was actually recorded by a microphone miles away from Dealey Plaza.

Also as predicted, conspiracy theories have been all over the map. In more than 100 conspiracy scenarios over the last 40 years, theory-makers have claimed there were anywhere from 3 to 10 shots fired by 2 to 6 gunmen working for 30 to 40 different combinations of instigators. They fired rifles, pistols, and even poison darts out of umbrellas. They shot from the depository, the adjacent Dal-Tex Building, the knoll, the railroad overpass, the roofs of at least two buildings, a storm drain, the curb, and even from inside the presidential limousine. They worked independently or in teams under radio control. Nearly 70 people were said to be in Dealey Plaza for nefarious purposes, leaving room for hardly anyone else. Sponsors include Cuba, Russia, China, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Great Britain, Israel, the Jews, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Mafia, oil-rich Texans, the FBI, the CIA, the left wing, the right wing, and the “invisible Nazi substructure.” Such chaotic thinking is the hallmark of ungrounded fantasy. It should come as no surprise that the JFK conspiracy case is going nowhere, despite loud claims to the contrary. After 40 years of unremitting search, the critical evidence remains largely as it was days after the assassination: JFK was killed by two bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle.

Forty years of failed speculation are enough. It is time to admit there was no conspiracy and there was never any serious evidence for it. The real story of the assassination is this: Kennedy was killed by one misfit guy, a cheap but effective rifle, a good vantage point from the building where he worked, and a run of fortuitous events.

It is over. We must realize that this horrible event was not some evil plot. It was the product of chance, not conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In watching Gary Mack on TV this week, I can't quite catch his logic when he says that Ruby murdering Oswald could not have been a conspiracy because of the coincidental timing of Ruby telegraphing the money and killing Oswald four minutes later......

.....Somone must ask Gary how Ruby's movements are proof that there was no collusion in the timing of the move of Oswald?

Pat Speer has accurately summarized most of the shortcomings of JFK: The Ruby Connection. The fact that Gary Mack lent his imprimatur to this show

and its conclusions render his opinions about conspiracy in President Kennedy's murder largely irrelevant.

It is unfortunate that Mack's position with The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza has allowed him such influence over television audiences, many of which were

not alive in 1963. I suppose I respect him for some of his knowledge about esoterica and some of his efforts in keeping the memory of November 22, 1963

alive in people's minds.

However, I have nothing but disdain for his efforts when it comes to the historical truth of conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All what if's are irrelevant, the simple fact being that Oswald was not going to be brought down until Ruby was in place. Till then, Oswald could have taken all the time he wanted to pick out a sweater.

The only what if that could have saved Oswald is what if Ruby didn't show up.

Lets not forget Tom Howard (Ruby's friend and subequent attny) suddenly showing up in the jail office area at the last minute, and upon seeing Oswald being led to the basement said.."That's all I need to see", and left.

-Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has sent me an email in which he answers my "questions". regarding The Ruby Connection. Evidently he fails to see they were not questions but comments. Evidently, he thinks anytime anyone has a different opinion than him it is because they have "questions" to which he has the "answers".

My original post follows. His "answers" are in the paragraphs beginning with GM. My response to his "answers" are in the paragraphs beginning with PS.

Oh boy, the Discovery Channel did it again. Fed the world a bunch of nonsense and paraded it as an honest investigation. This new documentary, while purporting to present an objective look at Ruby's potential involvement in a conspiracy, did everything it could to SELL America that such speculation was just silly. Gary Mack was once again its hired gun and spewer of nonsense as fact.

GM: All false. The show was a look at some of the details surrounding the shooting.

PS: Not true, Gary. The program was entitled The Ruby Connection, not "a look at a few minor issues involving Jack Ruby." Viewers were led to believe it examined Ruby's possible role in a conspiracy. Viewers were led to believe such a role was unlikely. The program's failure to acknowledge its limitations, and/or that there were MANY issues not addressed in the program can therefore be considered misleading.

The only value I could find in the program was its view of Oswald's death from 9 different cameramen and photographers. That was interesting and worthwhile. But the rest?

While I don't remotely consider myself an expert on the Ruby connection, here are a few of the glaring errors/deceptions...

GM: Of course, if you were an expert, you’d know that most of your “questions” were answered long ago.

PS: These were not questions, but comments. And they have not been "answered" except by those desperate to pretend they are not legitimate concerns.

NO mention that Oswald, at the time of the Tippit killing, had traversed almost a mile from his rented room, and was still on a direct route to Ruby's apartment, only a half mile away.

GM: Irrelevant. The show was about when Ruby shot Oswald, not theories about where Oswald was headed which, by the way, could also have been one of the restaurants on Jefferson Boulevard..

PS: No, the show was on The Ruby Connection, and attempted to use facts relating to his shooting of Oswald to disprove there was a connection between Ruby and Oswald. Facts that might suggest otherwise should have been admitted, should the program have been an honest one, without an objective.

NO mention of Seth Kantor's assertion Ruby was at Parkland Hospital, which might lead one to think Ruby's involvement pre-existed Oswald's arrest. (And would also lead one to conclude Ruby was a xxxx.)

GM: Ruby may not have been at Parkland at all. I know the timeline, and it is absolutely impossible. Go learn the time line from DMN ad office departure to the exact spot where Ruby supposedly met Kantor and then to the Carousel, parking his car, and placing a documented long distance call. It is a fact that after leaving the News building, Ruby DID wind up at the Carousel.

PS: Did you ever mention this to Kantor? I mean, you must have met him, right? Did you ever confront him and tell him that you believed his recollection of talking to Ruby--whom he knew prior to 11-22-63--was either imaginary, or a deliberate falsehood?

NO mention of DPD officer Billy Grammer's assertion that Ruby called the police station the night before Oswald was to be moved, and warned him that Oswald was going to be killed.

GM: Nor is there any proof that Grammer’s story is true…..and there is great reason to doubt his claim. If you were an expert, you would know why his years later claim is almost certainly false. Hint: start with Grammer’s failure to tell anyone about the call before the trial. Wade’s office was looking everywhere, privately and publicly, for anything that proved premeditation on Ruby’s part.

PS: Grammer's story doesn't need to be true. But viewers should have been told about it anyhow. Books like First Day Evidence and Bugliosi's monster rely heavily on the presumed integrity of the Dallas Police. And yet the statements of people like Roger Craig and Grammer are routinely ignored when they don't fit the Oswald did it scenario. Which is it? Do we trust the DPD, or not? And if it comes down to individual officers. why should we trust the likes of J.C. Day and Robert Studebaker over the likes of Billy Grammer?

NO mention of any dispute about Ruby's coming down the ramp. Yep, that's right.

GM: Wrong again. That’s what happens when you assume. An entire sequence testing BOTH Ruby’s possible routes from Western Union to the basement were re-created and timed. The results were within ten seconds of each other, so the tests proved nothing one way or the other. The head of the production company, Erik Nelson, took it all out for the 45-minute US version, but it’ll be in the longer (fewer commercials) foreign version and DVD, if there is one.

PS: You don't get credit for filming something, and then cutting it out. The net result was that the viewers were not told that Ruby quite possibly lied about coming down the ramp. And, by extension, that he was covering for someone in the DPD...

It says Ruby said he came down the ramp without pointing out that this was disputed by the officer guarding the ramp. Of course, this allowed them to hide that the HSCA believed this officer, and that the head of security for the basement, Patrick Dean, failed a polygraph, and had been singled out as a xxxx in 1964 by the Warren Commission counsel tasked with interviewing him.

GM: No, it says the Warren Commission eventually concluded that. I merely repeated what they decided. And I am well aware that Roy Vaughn disputed it and, in fact, Roy appeared in the cut version. Had you been an expert, you would know that I personally believe Ruby went in the HSCA’s side door, NOT the Main Street ramp. Here, I’ll do your work for you: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...b5a6aa511?hl=en True, Dean failed the polygraph, but the results don’t explain why.

PS: Had I been an expert, I still would have had no idea what you, another non-expert, had to say about Vaughn, or the HSCA's side door. Gary, your appearance on Inside the Target Car, and your subsequent non-explanations as to how you came to claim Jackie would have been killed by any shot from the picket fence, has led me to lose respect for your "expertise" and/or credibility. You go on TV, you say what is convenient to the single-assassin conclusion. Period. I mean, really, when was the last time you publicly acknowledged any NEW evidence that there was a conspiracy, or that some of the government's experts were wrong? Have you even read my webpage?

NO mention of Ruby's phone call records, which showed him to have been in ever-growing contact with underworld figures in the months before the assassination.

GM: Had you been an expert, you’d know that Ruby’s outgoing calls were almost exclusively to very low-level Mob people connected to his strippers and their union. And you are also omitting the fact that, for the most part, they weren’t spending any time with him and weren’t calling him back.

PS: WRONG. Ruby made two phone calls to Barney Baker, a known hit-man. In the days before the assassination, moreover, Baker was in contact with Dave Yaras, a long-time friend of both Baker and Ruby, whom Gus Russo credits with masterminding the assassination of Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. But no, there's nothing suspicious there. They claimed Ruby's calls were all about strippers. And Lord knows they would never lie.

NO mention of Ruby's assertion to Warren that the truth would not be known unless Warren brought him to Washington, and that Warren refused to bring him to Washington.

GM: Had you been an expert, you’d know that that old excuse was exploded decades ago. So he goes to Washington, spills the beans, THEN goes back to Dallas? How does that change anything? It doesn’t save his life. It doesn’t do anything.

PS: Apparently you equate "expert" with "bonehead". Ruby said the truth would not come out unless Warren got him to Washington. He begged Specter to get in touch with Abe Fortas, Johnson's closest adviser, to arrange this. Neither man complied. As a result, we will never know what Ruby was gonna say if they brought him to Washington. As far as your silly notion that no matter what Ruby said, he was gonna have to go back to Dallas...how the heck do you know that? If the Federal Government can steal Kennedy's body from the glorious State of Texas, it can certainly refuse to return a prisoner.

NO mention of the HSCA's conclusion that Ruby lied on his polygraph.

GM: Right, just as there’s no mention that Ruby’s polygraph was useless based on standard practices and understandings AT THE TIME. In short, the polygraph remains of little value, and irrelevant to proving anything one way or another.

PS: Polygraphs never prove anything. They are merely suggestive. If I recall, the HSCA's expert felt Ruby probably lied when asked if he'd had any prior contact with Oswald. Why you think this is of no importance in a program purportedly exploring the likelihood Ruby's shooting of Oswald was a spur of the moment act is a mystery.

The program did, however, repeat a number of single-assassin theorist factoids. Including...

That Oswald brought about his own demise by putting on a sweater, and delaying his departure.

GM: It’s a fact, regardless of whether you admit it or not. One version of the story is that he put on a sweater, didn’t like it, and asked for a different one. And he could have stopped in the bathroom first.

PS: It is most certainly NOT a fact that Oswald's asking for a sweater caused the car to not be in place upon his arrival in the garage.

This load of crud has been uttered repeatedly by the Dallas Police, but even a marginal study of the evidence indicates the police were not prepared for his departure at the time. I believe several of the officers even indicated that AFTER this supposed delay, Oswald was held in an office for a few minutes before being brought downstairs. The possibility has always existed, and still exists, therefore, that Oswald was held up by the police until Ruby was in place.

GM: Or that he waited until the cops could find the sweater. There just isn’t enough detail in the record to account for the second-by-second events and make them fit into your preconceived theory.

PS: MY preconceived scenario? The Dallas police, to help get themselves off the hook for getting Oswald killed, try to blame him for his late departure, when ALL evidence suggests they were not prepared when he did depart. But I'm the one twisting the evidence? Unbelievable.

That Ruby's arrival downtown after 11 indicated he'd not come down to shoot Oswald, but only did it as an afterthought. Dallas PD chief Jesse Curry admitted in his book that, although he'd told the press to be ready for a transfer after 10, he, and therefore most certainly other policeman, KNEW the transfer wouldn't take place till much later. I believe he said after 11. This leaves open the possibility someone on the DPD was in contact with Ruby...perhaps even the same officer who let him in the building.

GM: Nonsense. Videotape of Curry’s exact remark to the press appears in the PBS video, JFK: Breaking The News. All he or anyone knew was that the transfer wouldn’t happen before 10am Sunday.

PS: You are correct in that Curry, in his book, stressed that he knew nothing would happen before 10, and that the belief Oswald was scheduled to be moved at 10 was a false one. It is my own inference from this that he, and other police officers, knew the move would come a bit later.

The program also made some really STUPID statements. One glaring moment of "DUH" comes towards the end when the narrator says the fact that Oswald was allowed to live for so long after Kennedy's death indicates he wasn't killed for a reason. HOW could the conspirators know, after all, that he hadn't talked? UGGGGGGGGHHHHHH. ONE, because the Dallas Police were parading every bit of evidence before the press,

GM: Thanks for your erroneous opinion, but that is NOT what the cops were doing.

PS: Uggghhhh. Watch the interviews with Curry and Wade. They were laying out the evidence against Oswald, piece by piece, deliberately selling his guilt. If they were not selling his guilt, why did they both tell the press that the paraffin tests showed Oswald had fired a gun, and neglect to tell the press, even after it was erroneously reported on TV and in the press that this meant he'd fired a rifle, that the one test performed specific to rifle fire, the cheek test, was negative?

and had repeatedly TOLD the country Oswald wasn't talking.

GM: Cops sometimes publicly admit less than they know. It is a fact that Oswald wasn’t admitting anything of substance.

PS: It is also a fact that the kind of conspiracy we're talking about--one with long fingers--would know exactly what Oswald was and was not saying, even without the press conferences.

TWO, pretty much every conspiracy theory worth noting accepts the probability one or more DPD officers or FBI agents were involved on some level. Just a really STUPID statement, IMO, and one designed to confuse newbies unaware of the real issues.

GM: Involved in what, questioning Oswald or getting him shot? If the latter, then you must account for all the details we listed showing that the shooting was a coincidence of timing.

PS: Perhaps Ruby was hesitant to perform the killing, and only did so when he knew he could make it look like an act of passion. That pretty much covers it.

In short, the program appears to have been yet another program whose primary purpose was to convince people Oswald acted alone, and that the Dallas Police (and by extension, the City of Dallas) were completely innocent.

GM: Until someone comes up with some evidence, that is the bottom line.

PS: Nonsense. You can't erase all the other evidence for conspiracy based upon your belief that Jack Ruby, if he'd been a conspirator, would have been a bit more punctual. This is as illogical as assuming the Secret Service's failure to properly protect Kennedy is proof of their involvement.

I wonder if Gary Mack's contract with the Sixth Floor Museum includes writing saying he must participate in such programs, and help in their creation.

GM: False. My participation is up to me and no one else. I don’t get paid for my appearance and advice, and there is no requirement or bonus for any producers who wish to include me. For example, I played no part in the absurd Discovery show that preceded it (Did The Mob Kill JFK?).

PS: I don't believe for one second that your appearances on TV are all unpaid. You were given a Producer's credit for Inside the Target Car, for crying out loud. Producers get paid.

I wonder at this point if he would even be allowed to participate in a program should it hint, even so slightly, that the DPD was either incompetent or complicit in Oswald's death.

GM: The DPD was complicit. They failed to secure the basement. I think that’s been known since 11:21am on 11-24-63.

PS: Is that it? Is that the only flaw you can find in their behavior and/or testimony?

Suggested reading: Adams Vs. Texas. a true-life account of an accused cop-killer, and the injustices he faced at the hands of the DPD, Dallas County DA's office, and Texas courts. It tells of their efforts to kill him, even though he was quite clearly (to non-Texans) innocent, and guilty of little more than having long hair and having met a young Texas punk on the day the kid decided to kill a cop. (They couldn't get the death penalty on the kid--so they decided to pin it on Adams.)

Anyhow, it's a really powerful story, and includes a Dallas DA's claiming Adams was as guilty as Oswald. Which is kind of the point. As Adams was innocent. After over a dozen years on death row and prison, Adams was eventually let go, in large part because he got a movie made abut his case, but also in part because one lawyer on the DA's office saw how ridiculous it was to try to re-try a man for a crime to which someone else (a clear sociopath who went on to kill again after not being charged with killing the cop--a crime to which he'd confessed--in exchange for his testimony against Adams) had admitted to doing.

GM: Every city has problems like that, including Dallas. The difference is that Henry Wade and his people decades ago insisted that crime scene DNA evidence be preserved for the future. That foresight is the reason the innocent people even had something to test. Of course, if you were an expert on the Dallas Police, you’d know that, too.

PS: Wow. More convicted men have been cleared of crimes in Dallas County via DNA evidence than any other, but it's because they are so concerned with not convicting innocent men? Amazing. The current DA has acknowledged that the DA's office had had a convict at all costs attitude under Wade. Papers were released by this DA proving that, under Wade, the DA"s office issued guidelines to its lawyers on how to stack a jury with white jurors, explaining that they should try not to allow "Jews, Negroes, Dagos and Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated." But this, no doubt, was because their primary concern was justice. Right?

The State of Texas has executed far more men than any other. The current Governor executed an innocent man, and is trying to keep it under wraps so it won't hurt him politically. But this is all coincidence. Nothing wrong in Texas. No. Nothing at all.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd Vaughn recently joined the forum. Being a card-carrying member of Ken Rahn's reactionary cell "Nonconspiracists United," http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html, whose manifesto is "Chance Not Conspiracy," I thought he might be one to defend this theory.

http://www.kenrahn.com/Noncons/index.html

Chance, Not Conspiracy, In The Death Of JFK

Kenneth A. Rahn

19 November 2003

"...The evidence for conspiracy has in fact failed. JFK’s dramatic rearward lurch (Oliver Stone’s famous “back and to the left”), purportedly caused by a shot from the Grassy Knoll, starts too late and develops too slowly to be from a bullet." [\quote]

Could someone explain this? The man got his head blown off. What caused it -- a chance pebble blowing in the wind?

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat- thanks for posting that exchange with Gary Mack. Very illuminating. I don't see how anyone can read Mack's comments and still revere him as an unimpeachable source of information about the assassination. He has a very clear agenda, and that is to support the official lone assassin thesis.

His contention that Ruby wasn't at Parkland is laughable. Not only did Seth Kantor- who knew him well- speak to him, Wilma Tice reported encountering him as well. Maybe Gary now agrees with WC counsel Burt Griffin, who first practically begged Tice not to testify, and then responded most peculiarly to her fears and her reports of threatening phone calls. Her testimony proves conclusively that the Warren Commission was not "investigating" anything, and had no interest in the truth or even the safety of its witnesses. I urge everyone who has not done so to read it. It can be accessed here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...f/WH15_Tice.pdf

The idea that a lifelong hoodlum, with strong connections to both organized crime and the Dallas Police, would be able to waltz past some 70 law enforcement officers, who were supposedly there to protect their prize prisoner, and get off a point blank shot is absurd. Graves and Leavelle were standing on either side of Oswald- why did none of the other 70 officers in that basement protect his front? What kind of "security" is that? Just about the kind JFK got in Dealey Plaza, I suppose. If there had been a real investigation into the assassination, the Dallas police would have been grilled just as thoroughly as the presidential Secret Service detail would have. Without their incompetence and/or acquiesence, neither murder would have been possible.

Does Gary Mack still maintain that he believes there was a conspiracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat- thanks for posting that exchange with Gary Mack. Very illuminating. I don't see how anyone can read Mack's comments and still revere him as an unimpeachable source of information about the assassination. He has a very clear agenda, and that is to support the official lone assassin thesis.

His contention that Ruby wasn't at Parkland is laughable. Not only did Seth Kantor- who knew him well- speak to him, Wilma Tice reported encountering him as well. Maybe Gary now agrees with WC counsel Burt Griffin, who first practically begged Tice not to testify, and then responded most peculiarly to her fears and her reports of threatening phone calls. Her testimony proves conclusively that the Warren Commission was not "investigating" anything, and had no interest in the truth or even the safety of its witnesses. I urge everyone who has not done so to read it. It can be accessed here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...f/WH15_Tice.pdf

The idea that a lifelong hoodlum, with strong connections to both organized crime and the Dallas Police, would be able to waltz past some 70 law enforcement officers, who were supposedly there to protect their prize prisoner, and get off a point blank shot is absurd. Graves and Leavelle were standing on either side of Oswald- why did none of the other 70 officers in that basement protect his front? What kind of "security" is that? Just about the kind JFK got in Dealey Plaza, I suppose. If there had been a real investigation into the assassination, the Dallas police would have been grilled just as thoroughly as the presidential Secret Service detail would have. Without their incompetence and/or acquiesence, neither murder would have been possible.

Does Gary Mack still maintain that he believes there was a conspiracy?

You're welcome, Don. At first I thought it best to respond to Gary via personal email, his preferred manner. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the tone of Gary's statements--that he was an expert whose work should not be questioned publicly--as well as the statements themselves--in which he suggested there was nothing suspicious about Ruby's behavior--would be of interest to others. Those wondering how Gary can keep a straight face while spouting single-assassin theorist "factoid" after "factoid" now know. He actually believes it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...